Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DieChecker

Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps

143 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker
Just now, Tatetopa said:

I think that is too easy an out.  Some of them just wind up homeless because they don't have it together enough to seek help

Shouldnt that then be mental disability? If not then arent they just taking an easy out?

I've known people who went homeless. Most did so by choosing drugs, or alcohol, over their family. Or by choosing not to work to avoid child support, and such. I've only ever felt sorry for a handful of people, and only one of them was a man. He was homeless due to depression and what was probably Aspergers (but this was in 1989, so hard to say).

The homeless cant get Food Stamps, unless they have a job and a address. 

Point being, you are correct, but IMHO I think the number left out, or made worse, would be fairly low. We cant save everyone from themselves. Not yet anyway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
15 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Are they over 50? If so then this particular rule change shouldnt affect them. If they're younger, then likely they are disabled? Again shouldnt affect them.

I did read there are two other rule changes, but I've not read into them yet. 

Did they say why they lost benefits? I know Republicans have been trying to undercut food stamps, but I'd not read it was in practice already.

They are over 70 and it has affected them.  The state that makes the rules changed because the feds changed the amount of money that is given to the states for food stamps.  Politicians are undercutting all money they collect from states then give back as "benefits" including education, medicaid, food stamps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
10 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


Thats the everlasting argument though, isnt it.. Wasnt thesame 'logic' issued for the wholesale outsourcing policies some time ago?

Did you remember anything specific in regards to getting more competitive (with whom exactly, and why taxcuts of that magnitude were needed), so as to rationalise increasing the unbelievably unprecedented income disparity your nation is experiencing.. And why you would focus on the relatively low impact of 'frauds' of the little man instead of the comprehensive impact of frauds of the corporations and their elite..

Or did you just shrug your shoulders hearing that one sentence ('the business tax cuts were to make the US more competitive with other nations') and simply accepted it as necessary?

So you believe there should be regulations on companies limiting what the rich can earn, and what they can own? Because how else will the inequalities be handled?

Myself, I saw my taxes go down, and I liked it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

They are over 70 and it has affected them.  The state that makes the rules changed because the feds changed the amount of money that is given to the states for food stamps.  Politicians are undercutting all money they collect from states then give back as "benefits" including education, medicaid, food stamps.

Thst is sad, and I feel for them, but did no one tell them to save, or at least not count on only SSI?

Point being a lot of people get into that retirement hole. And I think we should do something about it, but probably not just expect to have to fund each generation to go into retirement broke.

I'm curious though. Is there a bill number, or was it just the Budget got less? Why was FS (Food Stamps) being cut back in this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
48 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Government giving some middle class tax money to rich people  = GOOD Capitalism.  Rich people deserve middle class people's money.

Except this is a socialist concept, only on a scale so large that it allows people to pretend it's actually capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
53 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Eh, 

350 million times 1k, monthly?

I'm sure that would help the poorest people, but would suck for everyone else.

As a middle-class person we would lose money. They would have to take from us to do it. There is just no way.

Nope.  Watch the Yang interview by Joe Rogan.  He explains it pretty well in the first half hour or so of the interview.  The appealing thing about Yang (to me) is his ideas for funding are not the standard ways that politicians are used/programmed to think about funding.  I have been anti UBI for decades and he turned me in that one interview.  Ever wonder how a star trek economy would work?  That's what I think Yang's ideas would lead to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Shouldnt that then be mental disability? If not then arent they just taking an easy out?

Do you realise how difficult it is for someone to prove they have a mental problem? The DWP here in the UK installed austerity measures that basically resulted in loads of people being deprived of benefits. The suicide rates among these people doubled and I can't imagine the devastation it has caused in those who managed to keep on going.

43 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Most did so by choosing drugs, or alcohol, over their family.

When someone 'chooses' to prioritise an addiction over their family, that isn't, most of the time, an actual choice. Not in the sense that 'choice' is usually understood. Addiction is one of the most prevalent, recognised mental health conditions amongst poor people, because that have almost nothing else to ease their suffering.

It's nowhere near as simple as, 'They choose to' do whatever they do.

36 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Myself, I saw my taxes go down, and I liked it. 

And that is everything that is wrong with individualist societies. It's all, 'Me, me, me!'. And the country overall suffers because the poor are neglected, which in turn causes a cycle of poor becoming more poor and more poor people emerging as a result. Then when you look at socialist countries not run by corrupt regimes you can see that addressing this has a direct effect on the lower classes, which leads to better education, higher quality employment, better health, higher general standard of living, longer life expectancy (the US life expectancy is actually, somehow, going down), lower crime, lower levels of violence, better mental health... And the list is almost endless.

There's a reason that the New Deal is the single most important policy ever created by the US government. And there's a reason why the US (and other countries who created similar policies) entered an era of unprecedented high standards of living, as a result. The wealth disparity that now exists is due to the erosion of those ideals. Everything's getting shittier and few people are willing to accept that it's because of this individualistic, me-me-me-me-me mindset.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
35 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Thst is sad, and I feel for them, but did no one tell them to save, or at least not count on only SSI?

Point being a lot of people get into that retirement hole. And I think we should do something about it, but probably not just expect to have to fund each generation to go into retirement broke.

I'm curious though. Is there a bill number, or was it just the Budget got less? Why was FS (Food Stamps) being cut back in this year?

You can second guess all you want.  They both never earned much and when you are living hand to fist all your life when are you going to save?  You are thinking like a middle class person who has never been destitute or scrabbling just to buy food, which both of them have experienced.  They paid into the system their whole working lives (beyond 65 both of them) and they had benefits that have been slowly taken away as the years pass.  The budget got less as far as I can tell, no legislative change in our state, just tightening the belt.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

he is not second guessing, he knows for a fact people over 70 are not affected, aS IN NO CHANGE FOR THEM,  what are you arguing exactly???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

This is exactly what i meant about hating downwards. You put this as 'The biggest problem,' when it is, like I said, practically a rounding error compared to tax breaks, no corporation tax, millionaires and billionaires evading taxes, and elites doing basically the same thing but on a scale that our minds are almost unable to comprehend.

It's like saying that someone who steals a carton of milk is worse than Bernie Madoff. We're being taught to hate downwards. and people (mostly conservatives) eat that stuff right up.

They often say things like the above, then go into a thread about Sanders or Warren and hate on their proposed policies that would deal directly with the billionaires instead of targeting the 'shoplifters' (of which there are a truly minuscule number of offenders). 

Of course, it's conservative propaganda and indoctrination of this type that leads to people believing that poor people on food stamps are the reason the economy is in such a mess, and not the beneficiaries of socialist policies for the rich. It's actually one of the main ways (along with fearmongering about minorities, immigration, etc.) that conservatives worldwide dupe normal people into voting for parties that exclusively represent the super wealthy.

Just blame and hate on those who steal a carton of milk from shops and ignore those that steal the entire supermarket chain. Makes total sense.

I gave the example of food stamps because it was in the topic. I don't hate downwards as you put it. I said the biggest problem IMO was fraud. That affects the entire US populace. Insurance fraud, tax fraud etc, there are a thousands of examples that are committed by the rich on down to the poorest that involve fraud. Some of the Medicare fraud is committed by Doctors. They aren't exactly downwards.

And stop trying to paint me as a conservative who wants the downtrodden and poor stepped all over while allowing the Rich to commit the very same acts. You have me painted in an entirely different view of how I really am.

Edited by South Alabam
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

You can second guess all you want.  They both never earned much and when you are living hand to fist all your life when are you going to save?  

Why did they not earn much? Did they trust the government would always support them? Were they unable to learn, or excel, or improve, or work hard? Where they unable to move?

Poverty is a mindset. Government promises are what promote it not to change.

Quote

You are thinking like a middle class person who has never been destitute or scrabbling just to buy food, which both of them have experienced.  

Meh, I grew up in a mobile home. With both parents working minimum wage. Our porch fell off. We had outdoor carpet inside. We had to go to town to get barrels of fresh water and had to go outside, even in the coldest winters, to get a drink. The well water wasn't good enough to drink. 

We had to walk a quarter mile to where our bus picked us up. We didn't have food, or money, for lunch.

Ive been poor.

I didnt go, "Woe is me!", and lay down to die. I fought for grades, and worked in mills, to pay my way through school. I sacrificed time, effort, tears, friends...

And I continued to do that for 50 years and now I make a upper middle class living.

NOW.... I recognize some people aren't going to make it due to disability, or illness... and I dont fault them. And I dont fault the government for its many help programs. I just dont think otherwise healthy young people need to be ENABLED into sitting on their hands eating free bread.

Quote

They paid into the system their whole working lives (beyond 65 both of them) and they had benefits that have been slowly taken away as the years pass. The budget got less as far as I can tell, no legislative change in our state, just tightening the belt.

AFAIK SSI is based on what you paid in, and is basically set in stone. I do know my father in law has great fear about it, because he is a priest/pastor and has taken Exempt almost his whole life. Is that the case here? Why would SSI be low and taken away otherwise?

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Do you realise how difficult it is for someone to prove they have a mental problem? The DWP here in the UK installed austerity measures that basically resulted in loads of people being deprived of benefits. The suicide rates among these people doubled and I can't imagine the devastation it has caused in those who managed to keep on going.

I thought the UK had "Good Universal Healthcare"? And everyone got the help they needed for free?

When you have people depending on the government, your going to see people who fail. It's called Enabling. People learn not to do for themselves, but to just wait for good to come to them from the government. It is a horrible thing. When hard times come they have no idea what to do, and just sit and wait.

Quote

When someone 'chooses' to prioritise an addiction over their family, that isn't, most of the time, an actual choice. Not in the sense that 'choice' is usually understood. Addiction is one of the most prevalent, recognised mental health conditions amongst poor people, because that have almost nothing else to ease their suffering.

It's nowhere near as simple as, 'They choose to' do whatever they do.

I'd agree AFTER they are addicted it's a condition. But most decide to get addicted out of boredom, depression, sadness, grief, stupidity? Whatever. But no one is born and raised to be addicted to drugs.

Agreed, a mental disability. And they should be labeled and treated as such. With medical support and financial aid. Till they are able to live normally again.

Quote

And that is everything that is wrong with individualist societies. It's all, 'Me, me, me!'. And the country overall suffers because the poor are neglected, which in turn causes a cycle of poor becoming more poor and more poor people emerging as a result. Then when you look at socialist countries not run by corrupt regimes you can see that addressing this has a direct effect on the lower classes, which leads to better education, higher quality employment, better health, higher general standard of living, longer life expectancy (the US life expectancy is actually, somehow, going down), lower crime, lower levels of violence, better mental health... And the list is almost endless.

There's a reason that the New Deal is the single most important policy ever created by the US government. And there's a reason why the US (and other countries who created similar policies) entered an era of unprecedented high standards of living, as a result. The wealth disparity that now exists is due to the erosion of those ideals. Everything's getting shittier and few people are willing to accept that it's because of this individualistic, me-me-me-me-me mindset.

Meh... Our Democrats have been waging a War On Poverty for 40 or 50 years, and the poverty rate is near exactly the same over that 50 years.

People use the argument, "Today things are so much harder...", which is just the same BS the old timers use when they say, "When I was a young person it was so much harder....". Excuses in my opinion.

People need to OWN their choices and CHOOSE not to be victims. Again... i know some people need help, but for people like this rule change targets....

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
37 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Why would SSI be low and taken away otherwise?

it can be taken away when  you live in gvmnt paid assistant living, there are other conditions as well when ssi partially or fully taken away, iirc even with medicare you can apply for medicaid as well, but you lose some of ssi, also if you are provided a home attendant it affects your ssi as well

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

I gave the example of food stamps because it was in the topic. I don't hate downwards as you put it. I said the biggest problem IMO was fraud. That affects the entire US populace. Insurance fraud, tax fraud etc, there are a thousands of examples that are committed by the rich on down to the poorest that involve fraud. Some of the Medicare fraud is committed by Doctors. They aren't exactly downwards.

Sure, but you immediately mentioned specific groups of lower income-type people. it wasn't actually a leap on my part.

1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

And stop trying to paint me as a conservative who wants the downtrodden and poor stepped all over while allowing the Rich to commit the very same acts. You have me painted in an entirely different view of how I really am.

I'd hope you weren't, considering you live in a welfare state with higher rates or poverty, crime and all the other related issues than almost every other state.

I should clarify that I didn't mean 'welfare state' as an insult. It is simply, by definition, what Alabama (along with many other red states) is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

This is just a smokescreen.  Get people talking about the 2% of people on food stamps while ignoring the fact that 98% of them work and still can't afford food.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
53 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

But most decide to get addicted

Mate, I mean this in the nicest possible way but you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here. People don't decide to get addicted (other than those who are likely already mentally ill and/or the dumbest people alive). 

53 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I thought the UK had "Good Universal Healthcare"? And everyone got the help they needed for free?

We do and we do. We were talking about welfare. The DWP is the Department of Work and Pensions. Basically it encompasses our entire benefit system.

53 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

When you have people depending on the government, your going to see people who fail. It's called Enabling. People learn not to do for themselves, but to just wait for good to come to them from the government. It is a horrible thing. When hard times come they have no idea what to do, and just sit and wait.

What on earth, man. How can you believe this? I thought you were just fiscally conservative, but these are some pretty crazy opinions you're throwing out here. How is a government providing for those who cannot provide for themselves 'enabling'?

You know what you have when your government doesn't? Astronomically high crime. I can tell you, if I was starving or had to feed my family, ****ing right I'd be robbing and stealing to do so. 

53 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Meh... Our Democrats have been waging a War On Poverty for 40 or 50 years, and the poverty rate is near exactly the same over that 50 years.

It's a bit hard to fight a war against poverty when conservatives are fighting against everything you're trying to do, tooth and nail. And the Dems have their own share of the responsibility.

53 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

People use the argument, "Today things are so much harder...", which is just the same BS the old timers use when they say, "When I was a young person it was so much harder....". Excuses in my opinion.

It's not. Things are objectively more difficult for current generations that they were for Boomer and Gen X. Relationally everything is more expensive, the industries that once supported families are dying out.

It was also true for old-timers at one point. Britain was on ****ing rations until 1954, for Christ's sake. 

53 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

People need to OWN their choices and CHOOSE not to be victims. Again... i know some people need help, but for people like this rule change targets....

This idea that people only make their own lives, and that they aren't born into lives that are made for them, is archaic. The social sciences have put this argument to bed over decades.

The only people who feel this way are those who don't understand what it's like to live below a certain level of society and some of those who have made it out. In both cases it boils down to giving themselves a pat on the back for being so great while taking a **** on those who have been Royally ****ed by life and society.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bed of chaos
5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Do you realise how difficult it is for someone to prove they have a mental problem? The DWP here in the UK installed austerity measures that basically resulted in loads of people being deprived of benefits. The suicide rates among these people doubled and I can't imagine the devastation it has caused in those who managed to keep on going.

When someone 'chooses' to prioritise an addiction over their family, that isn't, most of the time, an actual choice. Not in the sense that 'choice' is usually understood. Addiction is one of the most prevalent, recognised mental health conditions amongst poor people, because that have almost nothing else to ease their suffering.

It's nowhere near as simple as, 'They choose to' do whatever they do.

And that is everything that is wrong with individualist societies. It's all, 'Me, me, me!'. And the country overall suffers because the poor are neglected, which in turn causes a cycle of poor becoming more poor and more poor people emerging as a result. Then when you look at socialist countries not run by corrupt regimes you can see that addressing this has a direct effect on the lower classes, which leads to better education, higher quality employment, better health, higher general standard of living, longer life expectancy (the US life expectancy is actually, somehow, going down), lower crime, lower levels of violence, better mental health... And the list is almost endless.

There's a reason that the New Deal is the single most important policy ever created by the US government. And there's a reason why the US (and other countries who created similar policies) entered an era of unprecedented high standards of living, as a result. The wealth disparity that now exists is due to the erosion of those ideals. Everything's getting shittier and few people are willing to accept that it's because of this individualistic, me-me-me-me-me mindset.

Agreed. I believe it's very difficult to prove mental illness or physical disability (qualify for disability). I've known many w chronic history of mental illness (along w history of psychiatric meds) in/out of psych facilities and it doesn't happen. Even if physically disabled it's not easy. A woman I met in physical therapy had three back surgeries (multiple problems) in year and 1/2 hired law firm yet disability keeps rejecting her. I heard numerous times hiring lawfirm to resubmit is best option (hope ya got $$$) I do have conservative views but think this is bad. It will create chaos in welfare departments. It will cause (more) resentment and hostility towards case workers. Increase crime and homelessness. Whether chronic medical problems (like me from botched surgery) or chronic heroin addiction..it wont matter.

Edited by Bed of chaos
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

No one is going to starve.  For most people that will be affected by this, food stamps are supplemental, not supplying 100% of their groceries.  I was on disability and qualified for food stamps, $15 per month.  I voluntarily gave them up when I felt I was doing better, but had they been cut it would have only meant minor belt tightening, not a crisis.  There are food pantries, charities and churches in every community that provide food for anyone in need, no questions asked.  The people relying on food stamps for total support would all be in the categories that are not being cut.  The government savings from this will be multiplied because receiving food stamps is the gateway to qualifying for a whole host of other government benefits.  Often it's the only question on an application.  Income, assets, employment doesn't matter.  If you're on food stamps, you're in.  That's where a lot of fraud begins.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender

I am against food stamps for anyone who isn't disabled and can't work. The program is a sham and it has never served its intended purpose which was to help those in need, not give people an excuse not to work. It's a fact that many people sell their food stamps to buy food items they can't buy with them, or for just the money. I beleive that anyone not disabled should be give a period of time to get job or lose their food stamps.

i know what I am saying most likely will not sit well with some forum members, but I am tired of my tax dollars being spent to fund programs that are clearly broken, and this program is beyond help in it's current form.

JIMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Thst is sad, and I feel for them, but did no one tell them to save, or at least not count on only SSI?

If only life was a smooth, predictable course for everyone.  Things happen along the way to prevent consistent saving or to take what you've accumulated.  I wasn't counting on only SS, I had a career and a retirement package.  But I lost my job at the beginning of the recession.  This was when unemployment was only 6 months.  After 2 or 3 weeks of payments I got a letter from the state.  They require you to use up all retirement accounts before qualifying for unemployment.  So they divided my weekly unemployment amount into what I had in my account and suspended unemployment until the resulting number of weeks had passed.  Keep in mind that I was in my mid 50s and had planned to keep saving for 10 more years.  I found a minimum wage job 1 week before unemployment was increased to 104 weeks.  That job lasted 6 weeks but disqualified me from future unemployment.  During this time the disability that eventually sidelined me for good was starting to appear, interfering with chances at steady employment.  Then I got divorced (because I didn't have a job) and that nearly left me homeless.  Somehow I survived and now I live on a modest SS income only.  But, since then I've bought a house and I live quite comfortably on an amount most people claim they can't get by on.  Some is planning, some is management, but not all of it is under a person's control.  If you can do it my hat's off to you, but a little compassion and understanding for those not as fortunate would look good on you.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Mate, I mean this in the nicest possible way but you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here. People don't decide to get addicted (other than those who are likely already mentally ill and/or the dumbest people alive). 

We do and we do. We were talking about welfare. The DWP is the Department of Work and Pensions. Basically it encompasses our entire benefit system.

What on earth, man. How can you believe this? I thought you were just fiscally conservative, but these are some pretty crazy opinions you're throwing out here. How is a government providing for those who cannot provide for themselves 'enabling'?

You know what you have when your government doesn't? Astronomically high crime. I can tell you, if I was starving or had to feed my family, ****ing right I'd be robbing and stealing to do so. 

It's a bit hard to fight a war against poverty when conservatives are fighting against everything you're trying to do, tooth and nail. And the Dems have their own share of the responsibility.

It's not. Things are objectively more difficult for current generations that they were for Boomer and Gen X. Relationally everything is more expensive, the industries that once supported families are dying out.

It was also true for old-timers at one point. Britain was on ****ing rations until 1954, for Christ's sake. 

This idea that people only make their own lives, and that they aren't born into lives that are made for them, is archaic. The social sciences have put this argument to bed over decades.

The only people who feel this way are those who don't understand what it's like to live below a certain level of society and some of those who have made it out. In both cases it boils down to giving themselves a pat on the back for being so great while taking a **** on those who have been Royally ****ed by life and society.

There is a difference between the UK and the USA when it comes to mental issues and disability. In both cases if you have been diagnosed by doctors they will Fill out aper work that will prove or disprove your disabilities are permanent. The only time they won't is if there is no evidence of  a problem, for disability it will also require a physical exam that show your condition will not improve.

For me it was easy, due to my service and retirement from the US Army I was awarded 100% disability from the Veterans Administration. I have never used my disability to collect food stamps because I feel I don't need them because I can still work, and I do.

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
6 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

There is a difference between the UK and the USA when it comes to mental issues and disability. In both cases if you have been diagnosed by doctors they will write a per work that will prove your disabilities. The only time they won't is if there is no evidence of  a problem, for disability it will also require a physical exam that show your condition will not improve.

It should be noted that people with mental illness often work against themselves by acting sane.  I had a sister with severe mental illness that made her life difficult and brought her into frequent contact with the police.  Under the law all they could do was put her in the psych ward for a 72 hour observation.  The family could not even do that when help was necessary.  But crazy doesn't mean stupid.  She could act sane for a weekend and they had no choice but to release her.  Unless someone is bouncing off the walls or attacking the staff they need the bed for the next guy.  Without a documented history of treatment it's very difficult to qualify on mental illness.  it's also true that many mentally ill people think it's the rest of the world that has a problem so they see accepting help as an admission that something is wrong with them.  They will save face before saving themselves.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

You can second guess all you want.  They both never earned much and when you are living hand to fist all your life when are you going to save?  You are thinking like a middle class person who has never been destitute or scrabbling just to buy food, which both of them have experienced.  They paid into the system their whole working lives (beyond 65 both of them) and they had benefits that have been slowly taken away as the years pass.  The budget got less as far as I can tell, no legislative change in our state, just tightening the belt.

How sad. Trump gives the wealthy an extra 2 trillion and takes the food stamps off the poor and unfortunate. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
4 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

It should be noted that people with mental illness often work against themselves by acting sane.  I had a sister with severe mental illness that made her life difficult and brought her into frequent contact with the police.  Under the law all they could do was put her in the psych ward for a 72 hour observation.  The family could not even do that when help was necessary.  But crazy doesn't mean stupid.  She could act sane for a weekend and they had no choice but to release her.  Unless someone is bouncing off the walls or attacking the staff they need the bed for the next guy.  Without a documented history of treatment it's very difficult to qualify on mental illness.  it's also true that many mentally ill people think it's the rest of the world that has a problem so they see accepting help as an admission that something is wrong with them.  They will save face before saving themselves.

I totally agree with everything you said, and that is why a documented history is very important. I have PTSD, and I tried to hide it, but my wife made me see a doctor for treatment. I did manage to hide it for two deployments to the Middle East, but it got so bad there were times I couldn't function right, I suppose I was luckier than most because the VA did compensate me for it when I retired after 23 years and while the treatment didn't completely fix the problem I still am better off than before.

i am very sorry to hear about your sister, its a shame that her condition wasn't documented. But like you said people who are ill can't be forced to see a doctor or take medication on a regular basis. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
44 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I am against food stamps for anyone who isn't disabled and can't work. The program is a sham and it has never served its intended purpose which was to help those in need, not give people an excuse not to work. It's a fact that many people sell their food stamps to buy food items they can't buy with them, or for just the money. I beleive that anyone not disabled should be give a period of time to get job or lose their food stamps.

i know what I am saying most likely will not sit well with some forum members, but I am tired of my tax dollars being spent to fund programs that are clearly broken, and this program is beyond help in it's current form.

JIMO

I hope you’re also against people doing whatever it takes to scratch a living also. The same people celebrating The food stamp program being cut are also going to be the same ones looking over their shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.